In a criminal revision, the High Court rejected the plea to quash an order dated 07.07.2015 where the trial court took cognizance against petitioners for offences including intimidation. The Court held there was no record to interfere.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATJ
THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBEiy<<.
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE Of:
m
CO
tf-
PRESENT -.Mi. if/^5
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 1826 OF 2015
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of CrI.P.C againsttheorderdated 07-07-2015 in S.R.No.11639 of 2014 in Cr.No.49 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasapur,WestGodavariDistrict.
BETWEEN:
...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 2 TO 6 AND
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT
LA. NO: 1 OF 2015(CRLRCMP. NO: 2882 OF 20151
Petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that inthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioners herein pursuant to the orders dated 07-07-2015 passed in S.R.No.11639 of 2014 in Crime No.49 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narasapur, West Godavari District.
Counsel for the Petitioners:- SRI. P DURGA PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondents:- PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following ORDER:-
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.SRINIVAS
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 1826 of 2015
ORDER;
- This Revision is arising out of order dated 07.07.2015 passed in S.R.No. 11639 of 2014 in Crime No.49 of 2013 on the file of Court of learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Narsapur, West Godavari District filed by the petitioners/A2 to A6.
- Originally, a case in Crime No.49 of 2013 of Narasapur Police Station has been registered againstthe petitioners herein and another for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 448, 506, 509 and 108 IPC. Police after conducting investigation filed charge sheet by mentioning the names of the petitioners herein as Noncharged accused and the same was taken on file as PRC No. 10 of 2015 on the file of the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Narasapur. Thereafter, the defacto complainant filed objections before the trialCourt contending that the police are directly deleted thenamesof
2
petitioners herein without serving notice to her. By an order dated 07.07.2015, the learned Magistrate takenthe complaint filed against petitioners herein was takenonfile and issue summons to A2 to A6 through Court and R.P.
- Against the said order the present revision has been filed by the petitioners.
- On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that the order passed by the learned
3
Magistrate is encumbrance of the law and there is nothing on record to interfere with revision. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court dated 07.07.2015, the relevant and determining point in this Case as follows; “The evidence of LW-2 Y.Geetha Venkata Ramana who is mother of LW-1/Y.Hinduja is that she came to know through her daughter-in-law and Y.Hinduja that G.V.D.Sandeep Kumar had sexual intercourse with her daughter/LW-1 by giving sweets on the occasionofhis birthday. She further stated that the parents of G.V.D.Sandeep Kumar, G.Rani, brother of G.Rani andher brother came to her house quarreled with them aboutthe proposal of marriage to her daughter and threatenedthem with dire consequences. Likewise, LW-3-Y.Karuna Kranthi, who is sister of Y.Hinduja/defacto-complainant, stated similarly as that of LW-2-Y.Geetha Venkata Ramana.Thus^ the sworn statement of LW-1 also receives corroboration from the sworn statements of LW.2 and LW-3 who areher mother and sister regarding incident dated 05.01.2011and also with regard to quarrel and threat made by Shivaji,
4
Mutyala Vallabha Naidu, K.Ramesh, Priyanka, G.Raniin the house of Y.Hinduja in the year 2013 with dire consequences about proposal of marriage of LW-1. LW-6K.Kiran Kumar, who is husband of LW-l’s sister, stated that on 15.03.2013, G.V.D.Sandeep Kumar, his parents. his sister and his uncle came to the house of LW-1, quarreled with them and threatened them with dire consequences regarding proposal of marriage to LW-1with G.V.D.Sandeep Kumar. Thus, the statements of LWs. 1to3 and 6 reveals that A2 to A6 quarreled with defacto complainant and her parents and threatened them with dire consequences. 8. It is brought to the notice of this Court a judgmentof the Hon^ble Supreme Court in Zunaid v State of UP,in Crl.A.Nos.2628-2629 of 2023, in which Para 11, wherein it was held that:
“11. In view of the above, there remains no shadow of doubt that on the receipt of the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can exercise three options. Firstly, he may decide that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further and drop action. Secondly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1) (b)
5
on the basis of the police report and issue process; and thirdly, he may take cognizance of the offence under Section 190 (1) (a) on the basis of the original complaint and proceed to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses under Section 200. It may be noted that even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or protest petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijaya Verma vs. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and others, as followed in B.Chandrika vs.Santhosh and Another, a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the protest petition or the complaint as the case may be.
/
6
07.07.2015 in S.R.No. 11639 of 2014 in Crime No.49 of
2013 of Narasapur Police Station.
- Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
- Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand
closed. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated.
Sd/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR O-"
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To, 2.1. OnpOne CC to Sri. P. Durga Prasad,ClassAdvocateMagistrate,[OPUClNarasapur, West Godavari District. 4.3. Thp Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi [OUT] 5. IHREE oC.D Officer,Copies. Criminal Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. SSL AL
HIGH COURT
DATED: 14/12/2023
ORDER CRL.R.C.N0.1826 OF 2015
JfX ml
2 0 MAY 202A
'\o Co
Current Seotion
CRL.R.C. IS DISMISSED
SSL
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order taking cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 448, 506, 509 read with 34 IPC.
Whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding further against the petitioners based on the trial court's record.
Whether the trial court erred in taking cognizance of the offence on a complaint despite the police filing a charge sheet without naming the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Gannabattula Siyaji Chakravarthi
Gannabattula Prasanna Rani
Gannabattula Sai Priyanka
Gannabattula Matsya Vallabhurao
Kedasu Ramesh
State of Andhra Pradesh
V. Srinivas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
